A New Constitution? Cannot Be. Must Not Be. …. Let’s Have Unity.

4 09 2010

***************************************************************************************************************************

There you go. After 53 years of independence, we hear of some one having a draft of a Constitution that wants the social order in the country drastically changed. No, cannot be, must not be. It’ll create havoc, chaos and disorder. Imagine wanting a Republic and discarding the institution of the Monarchy, the Malay Rulers and the Special Position of the Malays and Islam as the official religion. That some one, and collaborators, if they exist as a group, must be crazy. Let’s tell them to be sensitive to the feelings of the Malays, the majority of the population of the country, help avoid another racial riots like in 1969, and let’s keep on calling for reasonableness and unity in the country.

The Utusan Melayu article below speaks about that kind of people bent on creating anarchy. The excerpts of an article written by a Malaysian, said to be a law lecturer, talk about distortion of law, wrong interpretations of the Constitution, as he sees it. He acknowledges that “the Constitution does give powers to the government to take affirmative action and it does acknowledge the fact that Islam has a special place in the public life of the nation”. But affirmative action is not a Malay right, said he. To our knowledge, he is the only one who says this. And he has been saying this here and there. His objective or motive is not known. But he dislikes the “crazy accusation against a (DAP) Chief Minister whose government has given twice as much money to the Islamic bodies in the state than the previous administration”.

But a Professor Emeritus, who is qualified to be called a Professor for the rest of his life, tells us to count our blessings, be thankful for the good things we have. Our Constitution has endured, he said. “It has provided a rock-solid foundation for our political stability, social harmony and economic prosperity”. He lists out six “sterling achievements of our socio-legal system”.

Let’s discuss these. Your views, however short or long, in English or Bahasa Malaysia are welcomed in here.

Please read the comments and our replies to them below these articles. Our counter-arguments to the unacceptable views expressed in the articles are contained in the replies.

**********************************************************************************

Perlembagaan digugat?

KENYATAAN Mufti Perak, Harussani Zakaria tentang ada ‘perlembagaan baru’ dibuat oleh pihak tertentu bagi menggantikan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, mengundang perhatian besar.

Beliau yang mempunyai bukti mengenainya mendakwa, perlembagaan baru itu menyisihkan hak orang Melayu dan agama Islam yang dijamin dalam perlembagaan sedia ada. Pendedahan Harussani berhubung perkara itu dianggap mengejutkan tetapi Awang sedikitpun tidak terkejut.

Awang pernah menulis dalam ruangan ini tahun lalu tentang usaha untuk menulis perlembagaan oleh parti politik tertentu. Ia dipercayai ada kaitan dengan persiapan untuk membawa Malaysia akhirnya menjadi negara republik. Selagi perlembagaan tidak ditulis semula, selagi itu sukar untuk merungkai asas kenegaraan, bagi mengikut acuan gagasan parti pembangkang berkenaan.

Tulisan Awang telah mengundang tindak balas pihak berkenaan yang membuat laporan polis mengenainya. Ketika diambil keterangan oleh pegawai polis, Awang tidak berganjak dengan pendirian dalam tulisan itu. Kini satu demi satu terdedah. Yang kuat tersemat sebagai perkara tersirat mulai terbongkar menjadi perkara tersurat. Kalau Harussani mempunyai bukti mengenainya, banyak pihak lagi juga sesungguhnya sudah dapat menghidu gerakan yang sedang dilakukan berkaitan perlembagaan.

Antaranya kempen penerangan yang agresif oleh NGO pro-pembangkang atas nama mengetahui hak dalam perlembagaan tetapi sebenarnya bertujuan mendapatkan input bagi menilai semula perlembagaan. Begitu juga isu-isu berkaitan perlembagaan yang diolah secara tersirat oleh beberapa pihak dan ghairah pula disiarkan oleh akhbar bahasa ibunda dan portal berita tertentu. Malah ada akhbar berbahasa Inggeris turut terikut dengan agenda yang sama. Jika tidak percaya, lakukanlah kajian kandungan akhbar edisi-edisi yang lepas dan amatilah secara tajam apa yang dibaca mulai sekarang.

Ini meliputi isu-isu berkaitan Islam sebagai agama rasmi, kedudukan Raja-raja Melayu, bahasa Melayu, hak keistimewaan Melayu, kontrak sosial dan kepentingan institusi-institusi awam. Kalau dalam sebahagian blog, ia lebih ketara dengan diwarnai kempen dan sentimen Misi Ke Putrajaya iaitu bagi membantu parti sebuah kaum untuk memerintah negara selepas pilihan raya umum ke-13 nanti. Institusi raja, Islam dan kedudukan istimewa Melayu yang terlindung di bawah Perlembagaan negara, diperlekehkan dan dihina. Awang melihat ini semua sebagai ancaman keselamatan dan bimbang akan tiba saat ledakannya.

Maka sebarang pencabulan terhadap Perlembagaan negara perlu ditentang habis-habisan. Kepentingan kaum yang keterlaluan dan berbahaya tidak seharusnya dibiarkan mengatasi keunggulan Perlembagaan. Banyak pemimpin kaum minoriti di luar negara begitu menjunjung perlembagaan. Presiden Amerika Syarikat, Barack Obama misalnya, sejak di awal penglibatan dalam politik berikrar mempertahankan perlembagaan dan tidak pernah tergelincir daripada asas tersebut. Di negara-negara lain juga senarionya begitu.

Maknanya, apa sekalipun aliran dan perbezaan ideologi di kalangan parti-parti politik, perlembagaan sesebuah negara perlu dipertahankan oleh semua pihak tanpa mengira agama mahupun etnik. Tetapi sebahagian pemimpin pembangkang di negara ini tidak begitu. Mereka terlalu rasis dengan berselindung di sebalik demokrasi, kebebasan bersuara dan kononnya atas nama penambahbaikan kaum. Mainan muslihat untuk kaum mereka, begitu dahsyat. Lebih memburukkan keadaan, ada pemimpin pembangkang Melayu yang bersama-sama berkongsi aspirasi itu demi memburu kuasa. Pemimpin Melayu itu hanya berdiam sahaja apabila perlembagaan negara dijadikan sasaran. Siapa pun kita, kita harus menjadi warga negara yang taat dan setia kepada negara. Maka Awang cabar parti-parti pembangkang untuk menyatakan ikrar menjunjung sepenuhnya perlembagaan negara. Jika berani dan bertanggungjawab, sahutlah.

http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2010&dt=0822&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Rencana&pg=re_04.htm&arc=hive

*********************************

Thursday August 26, 2010

Stand up and be counted, Malaysia
BRAVE NEW WORLD
By AZMI SHAROM

…..

In this kind of political atmosphere, it is of no surprise that what has been forgotten is that the basis of this nation was one of justice and equality. And the document that is meant to protect that, the Federal Constitution, has been misinterpreted to the extent that there is no longer any trace of this aspiration in the mainstream discourse of the day.

Let us be absolutely clear on this matter, the Constitution does give powers to the government to take affirmative action and it does acknowledge the fact that Islam has a special place in the public life of the nation.

What it does not intend to do however is create a perpetual system of ethnic-based favourable treatment nor does it advocate the idea that all other religious beliefs must be subservient to Islam.

However, instead of this reasonable position, what we have today is the idea that affirmative action for Malays is unquestionable and to be continued in perpetuity becoming the norm.

This cannot be further from the truth as there are no legal justification for it at all.

Article 153 of the Federal Constitution is seen as the holy grail for those who hold this view. However, if we examine the provision closely we will notice two things.

Firstly, affirmative action is not a Malay right. Article 153 does not endow a right. What it does is to merely give government the power to take affirmative action despite the overarching ideal of equality which is enshrined in Article 8 of the Constitution.

To support this contention, we see that Article 8 clearly states that all citizens in this country are equal except for situations specifically provided for in the Constitution. Those “specific provisions” are found in Article 153 and there are not many of them.

They include the power to establish quotas for the civil service, permits and licences, scholarships and education.

Therefore anything other than these areas should not be subjected to affirmative action.

Furthermore, any affirmative action has to be reasonable. The idea of what is reasonable must surely be open to research and debate otherwise there will always be the risk of abuse and wastage of resources.

This being the case, although questioning the existence of such a power to have affirmative action is moot, discussion on the efficacy of affirmative action policies and programmes surely is not.

The way the discourse is today, and not merely by the racialist fringe but by mainstream politicians in power, is that even the implementation of Article 153 is not to be questioned at all.

This is surely wrong based both on the meaning of the Constitution as well as the principle held by the founding fathers that Article 153 was an unfortunate but necessary aberration from the ideals of equality and that it was to be used not in perpetuity.

With these kinds of distortion of law, is it any wonder then that we still get people actually classifying whole swathes of the citizenry as having no right to be here?

Is it any wonder then that a crazy accusation against a Chief Minister whose government has given twice as much money to the Islamic bodies in the state than the previous administration, can give rise to the belief that he is a threat to the faith?

http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?col=bravenewworld&file=/2010/8/26/columnists/bravenewworld/6923883&sec=Brave%20New%20World

*******************************

Wednesday August 25, 2010

Time to count our blessings
REFLECTING ON THE LAW

By SHAD SALEEM FARUQI,
Professor Emeritus of Law, UiTM and Visiting Professor, USM.

Despite the many problems besetting the many-hued society that is Malaysia, the country has by and large been a success story. Still, the imperatives of the Constitution have not yet become the aspirations of the people.

AS we cross the 53rd milestone of our independence, it is befitting to reflect on the state of constitutionalism in the country. Most will agree that though the cup is not full to the brim, it is not empty. There is enough in it to relish and cherish.

The Constitution has survived the vicissitudes of politics. Despite many political and economic crises that could have torn other societies asunder, our Constitution has endured. It has provided a rock-solid foundation for our political stability, social harmony and economic prosperity.

One can count six sterling achievements of our socio-legal system. First is the wondrous durability of political cooperation among the country’s racial and religious groups. The rainbow coalition of political and ethnic parties that has ruled the country for 55 years is built on an overwhelming spirit of accommodation, a moderateness of spirit, an absence of the kind of passions, zeal and ideological convictions that have left a heritage of bitterness and violence in other plural societies.

The second sterling achievement is that despite periodic tensions and racist rhetoric, the country’s enduring and endearing inter-ethnic harmony has few parallels in the world. The various people of Malaysia are like the colours of a rainbow – separate but not apart. No race, religion or region is in a state of war with the government. Street violence is not our way of solving problems.

The third outstanding feature is the peaceful and cooperative manner in which social engineering is being accomplished in the country. Unlike some other societies like Kenya, Uganda and Zimbabwe (with a similar problem of identification of race with economic function), the Government did not expropriate the wealth of one community to bestow it on another.

With the cooperation of all races, it embarked on a pragmatic expansion of opportunities to give to every community its share of the pie.

A fourth remarkable feature of the country is the emancipation of women. In the workplace, in schools and in universities, women are easily outnumbering men.

Fifth, Malaysia as a Muslim country is, or at least was up to now, an exemplar of a moderate, enlightened, progressive and tolerant society that embraces modernity and democracy and yet accommodates the spiritual view of life. Secularism and Islam co-exist in harmony and symbiosis.

Sixth, Malaysia has successfully kept the armed forces under civilian control. There has been no attempted coup d’etat and no “stern warnings” from military generals to the political executive.

The blessings of Allah on Malaysia are many. There is much in Malaysia’s struggles and successes that is worthy of emulation by friends and foes alike.

Of course, the constitutional journey has not always been smooth. A fair number of monumental events tested the relevance and the resilience of the Merdeka Constitution.

The Federation of Malaya was radically transformed when it invited the largely non-Malay territories of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore to form the Federation of Malaysia in 1963. This led Indonesia to initiate a military confrontation.

In 1965, relations with Singapore broke down and the territory was expelled from the Federation. In 1966, deteriorating relations between Sarawak and the federal government led to the dismissal of Chief Minister Stephen Kalong Ningkan and the proclamation of a state of emergency in Sarawak. A similar emergency was proclaimed in Kelantan in 1977.

On May 13, 1969 racial tensions erupted into serious riots in the Klang Valley, causing loss of hundreds of lives. A national emergency was declared. Parliament and the State Assemblies were prorogued and democracy was suspended for about 21 months.

The breakdown of ethnic relations triggered massive re-adjustments to the political, economic, educational and inter-ethnic life of the country. Many legal and extra-legal changes to constitutional arrangements were made. However, the “social contract” between the communities was largely left untouched.

In 1983 and again in 1993, the country reeled under the confrontation between the political executive and the Malay Rulers over the Mahathir Government’s attempt to amend and curtail the entrenched rights of the Malay Rulers. On both occasions compromises were worked out and the Constitution as well as the institution of the monarchy proved their resilience.

The judiciary came under siege in 1988 and the then Lord President and two Supreme Court judges were dismissed. The dismissals were severely criticised by most independent observers but what is significant is that constitutional procedures were, at least outwardly, complied with.

Since the 80s, political Islam has been in resurgence. Besides the political significance of this phenomenon, many difficult issues have surged up against the Constitution – among them the conflicting jurisdiction of the civil and Syariah courts and the interface between Article 3 (Islam as the religion of the Federation) and Article 4 (the Constitution as the supreme law).

There are also difficult issues about the power of the Syariah authorities to curtail fundamental liberties guaranteed by Articles 5 to 13 of the Constitution.

The 2008 voter revolt against the ruling coalition and the Barisan’s loss of power in Selangor, Kedah, Kelantan, Perak and Penang raised fears in some quarters of political instability but kindled hope in others that a two-party system may be emerging.

Political hopping in Perak in 2009 led to the controversial dismissal of the Mentri Besar and the removal of a government that had secured a clear 55% of the popular vote. The crisis triggered an avalanche of issues whose dust has not yet settled.

After a period of decline, the Conference of Rulers and the Malay Rulers are reasserting themselves on a broad range of issues. In Kelantan an undignified royal succession battle seems to be raging.

Federal-state relations are under severe strain over petroleum earnings and the sale of sand. Some opposition-controlled states are demanding local authority elections. Federal officers seconded to opposition-controlled states are under intense pressure to act with professionalism and impartiality.

Barring a short period of judicial renaissance in the mid-eighties, the courts have a lacklustre performance in the matter of enforcing constitutional supremacy, promoting human rights, curbing arbitrary powers and improving transparency and accountability in government.

The decline of Parliament in the legislative sphere and its inability to play the role of “the grand inquest of the nation” call for remedial action. The continuation of a state of emergency for more than 46 years is surely contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Public trust in our constitutional institutions remains low.

The imperatives of the Constitution have not yet become the aspirations of the people. As we celebrate 53 years of independence, our laws and institutions, our values and our views cannot remain impervious to the changes and challenges all around us. It is for our human spirit to respond to this beckoning.

Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM and Visiting Professor at USM.

http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?col=reflectingonthelaw&file=/2010/8/25/columnists/reflectingonthelaw/6910844&sec=Reflecting%20On%20The%20Law

*********************************


Actions

Information

32 responses

4 09 2010
Imran

“the idea that affirmative action for Malays is unquestionable and to be continued in perpetuity becoming the norm” –

Kalau nak so’al, hak kerakyatan pun boleh so’al lah. Tak gitu? Bahru adil. Kata nak adil, dia cakap.

Dia tak sebut hak kerakyatan tu sampai bila bila. Dia ni Melayu liberal kononya ke. Atau orang DAP?

5 09 2010
SSS Admin

Imran,

Penulis itu nampaknya sedar bahawa sudah menjadi kebiasaan atau “norm” diantara orang Melayu menyatakan jangan menyo’al tindakan affirmatif dan tindakan itu perlu dilakukan selama lamanya. Ini mungkin timbul dari persepsi bahawa hanya adil begitu kerana hak kerakyatan bukan Melayu adalah untuk selama lamanya.

Telah disebutkan bahawa dari segi ini Perlembagaan negara kita kelihatan tidak adil. Bukan Melayu dapat hak kerakyatan yang amat berguna dan bernilai tinggi kapada mereka sebab mereka tidak mempunyai kerakyatan apa apa pun sebelom itu. Pada hal Kedudukan Istimewa Melayu itu telah ada sediakala, “from day one”, mengikut Menteri Penjajahan British bila membentangkan Cadangan Kemerdekaan Malaya diParlimen mereka ditahun 1950an. Boleh dikatakan Melayu tidak dapat apa apa, hanya Kedudukan Istimewa itu dirakamkan kedalam Perlembagaan.

Tetapi hujah-hujah seperti ini tidak mengatangkan faedah dan harus diketepikan. Perlembagaan sudah 53 tahun umurnya dan jika ada pihak mahu menukarnya dengan gempar (drastic), terutama berkenaan Kedudukan Istimewa Melayu yang menyatakan kedudukan Raja Raja Melayu dan sebagainya, orang Melayu akan membantah sekeras-kerasnya dan Melayu adalah majoriti di negara ini. Keadaan dinegara ini akan menjadi kacau bilau dan porak peranda. Maka mesti jangan dibenarkan.

Tentang pendirian politik penulis itu, tujuannya menulis pendapatnya, dan sama ada boleh diterima atau tidak pendapatnya, akan di bincang di komen komen dan jawapan jawapan yang berikutan dari ini.

4 09 2010
Kenn

In case the image does not appear, have a look at this prof madia azmi sharom’s photo:-

HERE

Read about this prof madia azmi sharom:-

HERE

HERE

HERE

4 09 2010
Anak Jantan

Encik Kenn,

Waaah, no wonder this Azmi Shahrom been talking like that. Sounds funny lah a lecturer talking like that.

Me no lawyer but strange that for over 50 years nobody talks about Malay rights, Special Malay Position like that. AND HE IS NOT EVEN A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER.

When I see him defending Lim Guan Eng DAP like in that article he wrote, now I know why. Bastardizing his views maybe? Or himself?

Everybody wants to bastardize everything now. Nazir talks about bastardizing NEP and in the process bastardizes himself – a product of NEP, yet people claiming to be bank staff have written to say he has not helped the Malays when he is in good position to help being a bank boss.

Txs for providing those links, brother.

6 09 2010
SSS Admin

Anak Jantan,

Bastardization of any thing cannot be tolerated and must be shunned. In this instance, bastardizing may mean putting out views that are not authoritative. They cannot be authoritative when we have not heard such views before. And the writer does not quote the authority for his views. No doubt he is a lecturer in law, but he is not even an expert on constitutional law. There are constitutional law experts in the country and they have not spoken the way he does or given similar views.

He is not known to be an authority on anything. To our knowledge, he has not written anything that has been widely acclaimed and regarded as authoritative. His time might well be spent on research, studies and dissertations submitted to reputable law magazines or journals where his views can be judged by his peers first before dumping them on poor, innocent laymen like us in newspapers, blogs and elsewhere.

Unless, of course, he has some hidden agenda. If so, his views become suspect right at the outset.

6 09 2010
SSS Admin

Kenn,,

The credibility of a person rests largely on his integrity. A man has integrity if he makes known his objective when putting out non-mainstream and controversial views. Saying that Article 153 does not confer rights to the Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak is certainly non-mainstream. It is not even professional because it is not based on an academic or professional research on the specific subject, going into all the records of the consultations, deliberations and statements that reflect the intentions of all those parties involved in the drafting and the adoption of the Constitution.

Not just the British Parliamentary draftsmen or constitutional lawyers, the major players like the representatives of the political parties then existing, but also the groups and individuals that Lord Reid and others spoke to and consulted. When laws or constitutional provisions are not explicit, the intent of all those parties are studied and argued. The writer has not said he has done those or proven that his arguments are based on all those, and quoting authoritative sources.

Someone has said that the man has hardly written books, thesis or dissertations for publication in reputable law journals at home or abroad. Writing opposing views in blogs and newspapers which mostly print the common man’s viewpoints makes him a common man, not quite the university lecturer he is said to be. When he defends Lim Guan Eng and the Government led by him, the writer’s integrity becomes the more questionable. Lim Guan Eng’s credibility was clearly questionable in such things as blaming MACC for Teoh Beng Hock’s death even just as the Police was starting their investigations, and the cause of Teoh’s death is not yet determined by the Inquest until today.

It appears that constitutional law is not his area of expertise. Yet he expresses his views that go against mainstream opinion here and there in blogs, etc. These are unsolicited views, unlike those of Professor Emeritus Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim, whose opinions have been sought by newspapers time and again. Because his views are rational, has historical, and generally legal, basis. He is a man of integrity even in his personal life, not known to be involved in such things as “sexual harassment” or a compromising situation that has been allegedly linked to the writer’s associate professorship appointment.

Considering all the above, the views of the writer do not appear to be credible and may therefore be ignored.

4 09 2010
abda

Aiyoyo, this one hot stuff one. True he married his boss an old woman ha? That their busines but she can recomend husband title ha? Mebbe befor married ha.

Then dont write conversial things la. Sure people find conversial things about you also.

7 09 2010
SSS Admin

abda,

Indeed, saying Article 153 confers no right to the Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak is controversial. Not only controversial, it is also strange. It is so because such a view has not been heard before. 53 years after independence when the Constitution has been in use. Nearly 40 years after the formation of Malaysia when the revised Constitution was discussed, debated and approved in Parliament, technically for the second time.

There are those full-fledged Professors of law all those years and they have not stated such an opinion. One seriously wonders why he is putting out these views. As has been pointed out, it appears linked to his support for the opposition political party. In which case, his views may be clouded by his motive.

Yet he does not quote authorities on his views. For readers to believe in his own views, he has to be credible. Credibility depends on a number of factors. The conduct of his personal life is one of them.

5 09 2010
dinturtle

Salam tuan admin,

Cina kiasu dibantu Melayu liberal semakin lantang dan berani sejak zaman Pak Lah. Konon dasar keterbukaan …jubur ! Masa Najib mula2 ambil alih, mereka test Najib dengan isu keris dan bila Najib bersungguh2 menafikannya, mereka sedar Najib pun lembik macam Pak lah. Lebih teruk, Najib memperlihatkan sifatnya yang juga liberal. Jubur !

Sejak tu mereka sedar Najib wajar dibela dan dipertahankan … mind you, ‘mereka’ itu adalah pembangkang ! Makanya mereka hentikan serangan keatas Najib dan target digantikan ngan TPM.

Segala kebiadapan dan kekiasuan mereka ini memang wujud dari mereka kecil lagi tapi semasa zaman TDM, mereka takut, hormat pada beliau. Dan kemakmuran negara waktu itu tidak memungkinkan mereka mendapat sokongan rakyat.

My point is – Kepala kena betul ! Jadi bila kepala tak betul, badan kaki tangan semua ikut rentak sendiri tanpa kawalan. Nak betulkan balik, KEPALA KENA TUKAR !

7 09 2010
SSS Admin

dinturtle,

Mereka yang mengaku dirinya liberal atau nampak sebagai liberal tidak semestinya liberal. Pendirian mereka mestilah mengambil kira dan berpandukan kapada keadaan kaum majoriti dinegara ini, ia-itu Melayu dan Bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak.

Mengikut kamus Inggeris, ciri-ciri orang liberal itu termasuk

– man of chivalrous instincts, fine feelings
– generous, open-handed, not sparing of; ample, abundant

Adakah mereka yang mengaku atau dikatakan liberal itu baik dan sopan santun (chivalrous) terhadap kaum Melayu dan Bumiputera? Jika mereka, dalam mengejar undi atau agenda sendiri, tidak hemahkan DEB dan kepentingan Melayu dan BUmiputera, bagaimanakah mereka baik kapada Melayu dan Bumiputera? Jika mereka tidak murah hati (generous), terbuka tangan (open-handed), tidak berusaha sepenuhnya (not sparing of) bagi mempertahankan dan memajukan hak dan kepentingan Melayu dan Bumiputera yang majoriti dinegara ini, mereka tidaklah liberal mengikut ciri-ciri yang ada didalam definasi perkataan liberal itu. Dato Seri Najib juga tidak liberal jika dia mahukan liberalisasi ekonomi sehingga NEP dipinggirkan didalam NEM dan Perkara 152 Perlembagaan berkenaan Bahasa Malaysia diketepikan.

Dikalangan kaum Cina memang hanya segelintir sahaja yang benar-benar liberal. Mereka seperti Professor Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim dan Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye, bekas pembangkang yang sedar pentingnya rakyat Malaysia berpandukan kapada Perlembagaan negara sepenuhnya.

Setuju bahawa, jika kepala tidak betul, maka perlu dicari gantinya. Kepala atau pemimpin perlu liberal secara memberi perhatian lebih kapada kepentingan kaum yang majoriti, tetapi tidak mengabaikan kepentingan sah (legitimate interest) kaum-kaum minoriti dinegara ini. Yang paling penting ialah pemimpin yang mempertahankan dan berpandukan sepenuhnya kapada Perlembagaan negara, terutamanya Perkara 152 Bahasa Kebangsaan dan 153 Kepentingan Melayu dan Bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak.

5 09 2010
Orang Lama

“we still get people actually classifying whole swathes of the citizenry as having no right to be here”?

What kind of lecturer is that? Apa dia cakap? Shouldn’t he be more careful in his choice of words?

What makes him write sana sini. Dia crusader or something? Apa dia crusade? Untuk siapa? Dia tak suka NEP untuk bangsa dia? Dia bangsa apa? Dia tak ada makan NEP ka? Tak pikir depa yang belom rasa NEP ka? Liberal kupla dia.

Who said citizens have no right to be here? People said those who question Malay Special Position should surrender their citizenship because Special Position was in exchange for citizenship.

7 09 2010
SSS Admin

Orang Lama,

Kata orang tua tua: 1. Banyak cakap, banyak salah, banyak salah banyak dosa, banyak dosa masuk neraka. 2. Pandai pandai tupai melompat, ada masa jatuh ketanah juga. Pasal dosa dan masuk neraka tu Tuhan punya kuasa. Pasal banyak salah itu, kita boleh kata. Kami pun tak tahu jika kami salah. Tapi kita cerita pasal dia, bukan pasal kita.

Who is doing the “classiifying”? The word “swath” implies people who have been mowed down. The plural “swaths” he uses implies there are very many. We have no intention to spin but he as a lawyer, and a university lecturer at that, should indeed be more careful with his words. One prominent lawyer said, “Lawyers are merchants of words”. Indeed, he has to be good to sell his merchandise. Right now the merchandise he tries to ply – the Constitution Article 153 does not confer rights on Malays and Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak – will simply not be bought by the vast majority of the Malays and the Bumis.

Nobody disputes the right of citizens who respect and abide by the Constitution fully to be in this country. Yes, people say only those who question the Malay Special Position should surrender their citizenship because the Special Position was in exchange for non-Malay citizenship.

5 09 2010
Steven

NEP should not be there permanently. Non-Malay citizenship is there permanently. Malay Special Position is there permanently. NEP is not said in the Constitution and should not be there permanently.

5 09 2010
OnDaStreet

Steven,
Yes, NEP is not said in the Constitution, but partial of NEP is embedded with what is written in the Constitution.

and sadly enough, the NEP’s portion question by some non-bumis touched on special position of the bumis…

8 09 2010
SSS Admin

OnDaStreet,

The Special Position of the Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak (referred to in the Constitution as “natives”) is stated quite lengthily in the Constitution. The NEP is drawn from that Special Position. The NEP was conceived in the aftermath of the 1969 racial riots. Racial sensitivity was high for a considerable period of time. The National Operations Council that was responsible for drawing up the Policy had chosen carefully words to explain away the riots and the affirmative action to be taken thereafter.

Perhaps because the Malays of Kampong Bahru having done “mengamok”, it was prudent not to appear invoking the Special Position of the Malays and saying so publicly when writing the NEP and announcing it later. No doubt Tun A Razak as Director of the National Operations Council had all the powers to do as he pleased. But he was still a politician, wanting to take care of the sensitivities of all the races in the country even then and he proved himself to be a politician first, not prone to dictatorship of any kind or staying in power under Emergency laws indefinitely. He had Parliament re-convened after only 21 months of Emergency rule and parliamentary democracy was restored. All non-Malay citizens should be thankful for what Tun A Razak did. He did not exploit the situation like these ultra kiasus did or try to do. He did not think of changing the Constitution by making it conditional for a return to Parliamentary democracy, which he could if he had wanted to. He only introduced affirmative action, drawn from but not specifically explained away as emanating from the Special Position of the Malays. The records of the deliberations in the NOC, if available for public viewing, may indicate or even show this.

They were couched in such language as “the elimination of the identification of race with economic functions”. Although, because the Chinese were the ones doing business and were well off and the Malays were mainly poor farmers and fishermen, the concept underlying the NEP was assisting the Malays and, after the formation of Malaysia, also the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak, to be better off economically and educationally. Still, until today it is also couched in language such as “the bridging of the economic and the educational gaps” between those who form nearly 70% of the population and the Chinese who are 23% of the population.

The community that already has vast amounts of wealth, control the economy, and are dominant in the various professional fields, should really be reasonable. It is alright to want more but it is wrong to encroach on the rights and privileges of others. The arguments on the interpretation of the Constituiton can be exhaustive and long, drawn out affairs. They bring ill will, sour feelings and antagonism. Being antagonistic is, by dictionary definition, being racist. Stimulus does bring response, action brings reaction. Questioning the Special Position and encroaching on the rights of the Malays and the Bumiputeras by Tony Pua and the MCA Economic Congress led to the questioning of their right to citizenship and that of their descendants, and is bad for national unity.

These should be avoided. The Constitution must be respected and must not be changed.

7 09 2010
SSS Admin

Steven,

Agreed that the non-Malay right to citizenship and the Malay Special Position are there in the Constitution permanently. Questioning one will lead to counter-questioning the other and is not good for the country.

These people with anarchistic tendencies speaking about a new constitution are irresponsible if they talk about changing those. It will cause protests and demonstrations, chaos and disorder. They must not be allowed to do so. Those speaking about changes to the institution of Rulers and the Special Position under Article 153 must be charged in court for sedition because it is clearly protected under the Sedition Act.

The NEP will be there until there is a level playing field or bridging the economic and educational gap between the Chinese and the others to a satisfactory level. What will be satisfactory or when the field will be considered level is yet to be determined. So far, only corporate wealth has been raised and the Malays have achieved only 18% of the 30% target. Wealth in other forms has not been actively pursued – Malays and Bumiputeras hardly own commercial buildings and shop-houses in the country. Even in the area of professionals in the country, the Malays have only 25% qualified accountants registered at the relevant regulatory bodies.

Let us be reasonable. All the non-Malays have taken up citizenship and will continue to do so forever. So many Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak have not benefitted much from the NEP. We can speak for better implementation of the NEP but people should not hit at the concept of NEP. The NEP was conceived from the Special Position. Questioning that will attract others to question the non-Malay citizenship right and it’s not good for anybody.

5 09 2010
Gunther

Lawyers for the Establishment say the Constitution stays. All of it.

Lawyers for appeasement (whatever) say the Constitution goes. Parts of it.

The anarchists, the communists and the subversives say no need any Constitution. They thrive in lawlessness and disorder.

Jokers like the loyar buruk fella in your previous post say just live on loyalty, obedience and whatever. They should have their heads examined.

For goodness sake, fellas, if you want any changes to the Constitution, get two thirds majority in Parliament. Then get constitutional law experts look at what you want changed in the Constitution.

Know what? I’m damn right about that and I’m not even a lawyer.

7 09 2010
SSS Admin

Gunther,

Yes, you are right but with the very important qualification – provided that the changes are not drastic, not involving Article 153 on the Special Position of the Malays and the Bumipteras of Sabah and Sarawak, which is protected under the Sedition Act. The Sedition Act needs to be repealed first before any discussion can be done on, much less any proposal to amend Article 153 can be mooted out. Talk about repealing or amending the Sedition Act that affects or pertains to Article 153 would likely bring about protests and demonstrations much bigger than the opposition can garner, and this itself might affect the stability of the country, let alone a proposal to drastically change the Constitution.

We have just released a comment for publication here (see below) pointing out that 1Malaysia Youth Graduands Club members have lodged a police report against the Bar Council MyConstitution Campaign saying it is seditious. It is not clear to us whether the MyConstitution Campaign touches on Article 153 but the fact remains that any proposal to change the Constitution drastically will be met with opposition and Police reports. Police reports can be made even purely on the grounds of strong suspicion that any moves by anybody would likely disturb the peace. What more moves adversely affecting Article 153.

It is heartening to hear fellow citizens like you pointing out that lawlessness and disorder are conditions that anarchists, communists and subversives thrive in. Communist terrorists used to create a sense of fear, cowing down the populace into supporting them, by wanton killing of innocent civilians. This tactic of creating lawlessness and disorder is not lost among the the anarchists, subversives and communist sympathisers of today. They look for and find each and every opportunity to blame the authorities in trying to get support.

They went to the extent of blaming the MACC for the death of Teoh Beng Hock even just as the Police were starting their investigations, and the cause of death is not yet determined by the Inquest until this very day. They may even be using thugs and gangsters because there were allegations of meetings being held with “the Underworld” in the premises of the Selangor State Government. Gangster tactis appeared to have been used, for example, by banging MACC doors presumably demanding explanations, and the Klang Hospital mortuary doors, presumably demanding to view TBH’s remains.

5 09 2010
Dal

Semua kecoh-kecoh ni bermula dari hati tamak yang memandu seseorang yang tidak pernah merasa senang walau pun hidupnya sudah dikira senang.

Kemudian tendang-terajang si tamak ini di sambut oleh hati dengki yang memandu seseorang yang hidupnya “sial” tidak pernah dapat apa yang diidamkannya. Dia sial ini pun bukan kerana dia dilahirkan “sial” tapi kerana dia tidak pernah meningkat dewasa dari “peringkat anak kecil berumur 2 tahun” yang asyik merebut toys yang ditangan kawan-kawannya padahal toys yang ditangannya sudah melebihi dari apa yang di tangan kawannya.

Manakala si tamak dan sisial bergabung dengan si khayal dalam PR umpamanya, maka tidak hairanlah undang-undang tidak diikut, perlembagaan dilanggar tonggang langgang, tidak hormat dan adab kepada orang tua (Raja), hak orang lain diidamkan padahal hak yang sudah dirampas sudah menggunung, peraturan agama dijadikan tangga memanjat kedudukan dunia, tempat ibadah dijadikan pentas sendiwara …. dan macam-macam keonaran lagi.

Ketika Hang Jebat mengamuk gara-gara sifat dengki dan tamak Si Ketol, tidak begini gegak gempitanya. Berita mengenai amok itu setakat di Melaka sahaja. yang berlaku di negara kita ini menjadi tontonan sedunia.

Kalau hendak tukar Perlembagaan pun, … bila habisnya? Selagi si tamak dan si dengki duduk di atas sebaris dalam saf yang sama … perlembagaan apa pun tidak berbeza penyudahnya.

Bersatu? Unite? Selagi orang No 1 yang duduk di atas terketar-ketar, bingung, berpandu dengan tungkat si buta ……. . Tapi kita pernah punyai orang No 1 yang walau pun tak popular bagi sesetengah orang, nampaknya tak begini teruk maruah Bangsa Melayu dibuatnya.

NEP? NEM? Si tamak? Si Sial? Si Khayal? Bastardisation? Ramuannya mungkin berlainan atau keserupaan. Munkin yang masih tidak kepastian ialah bila orang No 1 bertukar …… macam Pulau Pinang, Perak …

8 09 2010
SSS Admin

Dal,

Mungkin ada perselisehan budaya atau “clash of cultures” diantara budaya yang berdasarkan mengambil untung (profit taking i.e business), mengambil risiko (risk taking) dan mengumpul harta (wealth accumulation) dengan budaya berdagang (barter trading) yang berdasarkan pertukaran barangan harian, mengikut apa yang “patut”, tidak mengikut timbang, dacing dan harga. Budaya berniaga dan mengumpul harta itu mendorong sesetangah penganutnya kapada tamak haloba dan ultra kiasu. Budaya berdagang dan berpatutan itu mendorong penganutnya kapada pendirian kais pagi makan pagi, sehingga berubah kapada mula berlajar berniaga dengan adanya DEB. Ditambah dengan dasar penjajah British yang mempinggirkan kaum Melayu, mereka ketinggalan jauh dibelakang dari segi ekonomi dan pelajaran.

Bila sudah terbawa dengan tamak haloba dan ultra kiasu (asyik mahu menang, tak mahu ketinggalan), timbullah tendang terajang, kekadang persaingan sengit “dog eat dog” walau pun diantara mereka, ada masanya mencecah hak dan kepentingan orang lain. Ini terlihat dari tindakan DAP Tony Pua mahu menghakis diskaun perumahan Bumiputera, dan Kongress Ekonomi MCA, mahu 30% equity Bumiputera dihapuskan. Ini sudah melampau dan tidak boleh didiamkan. Perlu dikritik dan dikondem, diperingatkan peruntukan Perlembagaan berkenaan Kedudukan Istimewa Melayu dan Bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak, demi kepentingan muhibbah dan penerusan perhubungan baik diantara kaum dinegara ini.

Nyata bahawa kaum yang sudah mempunyai kekayaan yang begitu banyak, yang menguasai ekonomi negara hampir didalam kesemua aspek, perlu bertimbang rasa dan menjadi “patut”. Sudah termaktub didalam Perlembagaan bahawa mereka dapat hak kerakyatan dan, sebagai balasan baginya, Melayu dan Bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak mendapat Kedudukan Istimewa mereka dirakamkan didalam Perlembagaan negara. Maka patutlah mereka hormat dan ikuti Perlembagaan negara dengan sepenuhnya.

Niat menukar Perlembagaan secara keseluruhannya adalah jahat dan tidak bertanggung jawab. Mereka mahu memporak perandakan keadaan dan tidak boleh dibenarkan sama sekali. Setiap percobaan menyo’al Kedudukan Istimewa Melayu dan Bumiputera akan menimbulkan tindakbalas menyo’al hak kerakyatan bukan Melayu dan turn temurun mereka, dan ini tidak baik bagi kesejahteraan negara.

6 09 2010
Sayong

Tuan,

Teman terbaca komen ni ha diblog Ridhuan Tee, teman sibuk skrng ni, ma’af salin saje ye –

n.ajis said…
Song sememangnya contoh klasik ultrakiasu tulen.

Cuba layari blog kepala ultrakiasu Lim Kit Day, kita akan jumpa ramai spesis spt Song.

Spesis yang:
1. Membenci unsur2 Islam dalam negara
2. Menolak hak istimewa Melayu
3. Memperlekeh polis dan askar serta institusi Kerajaan yg majoritinya Melayu
4. Menuduh Melayu malas dan perasuah
5. Mempertikai dasar afirmitif membantu Melayu miskin
6. Menyindir hak istimewa sbg tongkat
7. Menuntut sekularisme dan hak samarata dan samaagama
8. Bercita2 menjadikan Malaysia sebuah republik
9. Menulis semula Perlembagaan

Sbb itu sampah sarap spt Nameweak, Katy Lim dipertahan oleh ultrakiasu kerana mereka ini mendokong aspirasi ultrakiasu-cauvinist-communist.

8 09 2010
SSS Admin

Sayong,

Nyata bahawa usaha menulis semula Perlembagaan itu dilakukan kumpulan yang “ultra kiasu”, terutamanya jika mahukan penukaran Perlembangan secara drastik dan menyentuh atau mengenepikan peruntukan Kedudukan Istimewa Melayu dan Bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak. Jika usaha itu melibatkan kedudukan Raja Raja Melayu, itu sudah melampau. Itu nyata menghasut atau “seditious” sebab Perkara 153 Kedudukan Istimewa Melayu itu dikawal dibawah Akta Hasutan atau Sedition Act.

Tepatlah tindakan mereka yang telah membuat laporan Polis berkenaan dengannya, seperti 1Malaysia Youth Graduands Club terhadap Bar Council MyConstitution Campaign, walau pun Jawatankuasa Bar Council itu tidak diketahui sebagai kumpulan ultra kiasu Lim Kit Siang yang dimaksudkan dikomen tersebut diatas itu. Maka Polis mesti menyisat, terutama mereka yang disebutkan Mufti Perak itu; Mufti tersebut tentu ada maklumat yang boleh dijadikan punca penyiasatan diPerak atau Penang dimana ada banyak yang ultra kiasu. Peguam Negara mesti mendakwa mereka yang berkenaan keMahkamah. Mana mana cadangan yang menyentuh perkara 153 nyata menghasut atau “seditious”. Tindakan diperlukan bagi menghalang (deter) dan membantut (frustrate) usaha-usaha yang akan memporak perandakan keadaan.

Kurangnya tindakan dibawah Akta Hasutan sejak pemerintahan Tun Abdullah Badawai telah menyebabkan kumpulan ultra kiasu itu melanda landa. Tidak cukup dengan mahu “meminda” Perlembagaan, ada yang mahu “menukar” Perlembagaan. Mereka bukan sahaja “menghasut” tetapi sudah menjadi “subversif”. Polis juga perlu menyiasat sama ada unsur-unsur subverif itu ada berhubung dengan saki baki kominis Chin Peng atau kumpulan bahru kominis. Telah diberitakan diakhbar bahawa ada segelintir rakyat yang mahukan pengganas kominis Chin Peng dibenarkan masuk Malaysia.

Pengganas Chin Peng itu masih lagi keras kepala, tidak mengaku kesalahanya berpuluh tahun mengganas, tidak mahu meminta ma’af diatas penjahnaman nyawa maanusia dan harta benda yang dilakukan gerombolannya, tidak mahu menyingkirkan ideologi kominis yang diharamkan diMalaysia, tidak mahu membubarkan Parti Kominis Malaya yang diketuainya berpuluh tahun lalu. Mereka yang bersimpati dengannya perlu disiasat. Konsep penubuhan Republik (tanpa Raja Raja Melayu) adalah sejajar dengan ideologi kominis sejak Parti Kominis Malaya ditubuhkan dahulu.

Melayu akan menentangnya sehabis-habisan sebab institusi Raja Raja adalah payong kapada hak dan kepentingan Melayu. Raja Raja, melaui YDP Agong dan Sultan tiap-tiap negeri, adalah penjaga kedudukan agama Islam. YDP Agong berkuasa, melalui Kerajaan yang dilantiknya selepas setiap pilihan raya umum, menentukan dan memajukan kedudukan kaum Melayu dan Bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak yang ketinggalan jauh dibelakang akibat dasar pemerintahan Penjajah British dllnya. Apa-apa usaha menukar keadaan ini adalah merbahaya bagi ketenteraman negara dan mesti dibendong dan mereka berkenaan dinyahkan dari negara ini, seperti Chin Peng telah dinyahkan ke Betong diSelatan Siam.

6 09 2010
Kenn

As Language is also a “major” item in the Constitution, eventhough seems to be “neglected” even by our own current PM, I like to mention here some of the points made by a blogger, OutSyed The Box (OTB) in his blog entry, entitled, Language

Talking about “economic” languages OTB had mentioned the similarity that Malaysia has with the Dutch. While the Dutch is “Truly European” and Malaysia is “Truly Asia”, in this respect, I agree and support that we Malaysians should be able to master multi-languages in order to take advantage of the economic position in this region. This include Mandarin.

However, Malaysia MUST be “founded” first before singing “Malaysia Truly Asia”. How do we identify a nation, Malaysia, when the nation is not properly “founded” meaning to say, not having a proper identity? Are we Malaysian? Are we chinese? Are we Indians? Are we Punjabis, Kadazan etc? Are we Rojak?

Only when Malaysia is properly “founded”, then only the phrase of “Malaysia Truly Asia” really have its meaning like the Dutch with her “Truly European”.

In this respect, I like to quote OTB as below:-

The time has also come where we must seriously consider merging the school system into just one school system ie based on Bahasa Malaysia and English only. We need to abolish the Chinese and Tamil language school system. The Chinese and Tamil language heroes say that if Chinese and Tamil schools are abolished, their language and culture will also disappear. Wrong.”

When Chinese, Indians and anyone else migrate to Australia they learn to speak English in a jiffy. No one asks for Tamil or Mandarin to be made national languages in Australia. No one sings the Waltzing Matilda in Tamil or Mandarin in Australia. “

The same logic applies to Malaysia. It is high time non Malays in Malaysia learn to speak Malay like a native Malay. Getting straight As for Bahasa Malaysia in the SPM does not mean anything if you still say ‘saya api kereta naik mari’ or ‘saya naik keleta api mali sini.”

“It is not cute anymore. Actually it is quite embarrasing. Please lets speak the language the way it should be spoken.

The main medium in all our schools should be English and Malay. Science, Mathematics and perhaps a few other subjects must be taught in English. The other language being Malay. Percayalah if we don’t do this, lagi 50 tahun pun kita akan masih merangkak, meraba, mengelabah dan merana.

9 09 2010
SSS Admin

Kenn,

Multiple language capabilities has always been an asset to people in the world. Especially those whose work or personal interests involve frequent contacts with foreigners. Life is always richer with more knowledge and experience gained. Ability communicating in other languages certainly widen one’s experience in life. And life is the total sum of one’s experiences.

Because China is now about to replace, if not already replacing Japan as the No. 2 economy in the world, knowledge in Mandarin is certainly useful, even necessary, for business with China. Just as knowledge in Japanese has been useful for business in Japan in the past. Both the Japanese and the Chinese have tried to learn English as well because clearly English is an international language whereas Mandarain, although spoken by 1.3 billion people, is mostly spoken in China. Nevertheless, because 23% of the population is Chinese, even for sentimental reason, Mandarin is allowed and, for business, is even encouraged to be studied in Malaysia.

But Mandarin should be studied only as an elective subject in national schools. Mandarin cannot be the medium of instruction in Chinese schools because the National Languae as stipulated in the Constitution is Bahasa Malaysia. English being an international language spoken in many parts of the world, should be the medium of instruction for the teaching of Mathematics and Science. We need advancement in science and technology to achieve a fully developed nation status. English is necessary to get us there reasonably early.

Bahasa Malaysia has to be not only learnt but practised by all Malaysian citizens. It is simply ridiculous to claim being a citizen when one cannot even speak the National Language of the country. The Government really has to take action on this matter. It is already 53 years since independence when the National Language was determined and stated in the Constitution of the country. This is also a non-negotiable item in the Perlembagaan. The Perlembagaan may be amended on non-sensitive matters but cannot be changed for the sake of peace and order in the country.

6 09 2010
Semerah Padi
9 09 2010
SSS Admin

Semerah Padi,

Link yang diberikan itu menunjukkan dakyah propaganda bahru ini dilakukan oleh pihak yang bertujuan politk semata mata. Berkaitan tindakan yang dilakukan diUniversiti Utara Malaysia yang lalu, blog itu berkata, “Nampaknya kerajaan negeri Kedah dan pemimpin PKR terlibat sama dalam usaha untuk membuat perlembagaan baru ini.” Yang dilapurkan aktif didalam percobaan tersebut adalah dari aliran yang janggal, termasuk Paul Linus Andrews, Ketua Jabatan Undang-Undang, Sunway College University. Begitu juga mereka yang terlibat dalam kempen kesedaran “Perlembagaanku” yang dianjurkan oleh Majlis Peguam Negara.

Mereka bukan bijak pandai, atau rakyat yang peka dan benar benar prihatin, yang mahukan peminda’an Perlembagaan diatas kepercayaan ikhlas kepincangan mana-mana peruntukan yang boleh dipinda (Perkara 153 dilindung oleh Akta Hasutan), tetapi di dorong oleh kepercayaan politik mereka. Paul Andrews dahulunya seorang Police Lieutenant diRhode Island, USA. Dia mempunyai ijazah undang-undang dari Roger Williams University School of Law (2001), yang jarang didengar. Dia bersara dari Polis dan “concentrates his practice in the area of criminal defense, DWI, divorce, child custody, and personal injury.” Mengajar diSunway College, bukanlah suatu University. Tidak ada langsung disebut pengtahuan atau pengalamannya didalam bidang undang-undang Perlembagaan atau constitutional law. Dia dipilih Sunway College dan dibawa masuk ke kumpulan tersebut mungkin diatas kesanggupannya menyokong pendirian politik pembangkang. Dipercayai dia warga asing, syarat kebenaran kerja (Work Permit)nya perlu di siasat; biasanya Kebenaran Kerja / Work Permit tidak membenarkan pemegangnya mengambil bahagian didalam politik dinegara ini.

Blog itu juga menyatakan kempen itu telah bermula 13 November 2009. Kemudian timbul pula buku “The March to Putrajaya – Malaysia New Era Is At Hand” oleh Kim Quek yang mengandungi 361 muka surat. “Buku ini didakwa memutar belit banyak perkara dan menghasut rakyat untuk membenci Perlembagaan yang sedia ada.”

Juga dinyatakan ialah:

“Kempen Perlembagaanku juga ini telah dibuat dalam Facebook … dan dalam Youtube. Perlembagaanku bertindak sebagai Jawatankuasa Undang-undang Perlembagaan yang ditubuhkan di bawah naungan Majlis Peguam Malaysia. Dianggotai oleh peguam, pelajar, ahli media, ahli akademik, pertubuhan-pertubuhan bukan kerajaan. Antara yang terlibat memberikan sokongan kepada Perlembagaanku adalah DAP (cawangan Pahang), Malik Imtiaz dan Zaid Ibrahim.

Sesudah tuntutan Interfaith Commission (IFC) dan Forum Memeluk Islam pada 9 Ogos 2008, Bar Council berterusan untuk mempertikai perlembagaan dengan kempen “Perlembagaanku”. Dalang-dalang yang terlibat dalam usaha untuk membuat perlembagaan baru dan meminta agar semua persetujuan sosial yang sudah termaktub dalam perlembagaan dibatal perlu disiasat dan dikenakan tindakan. Kempen mereka ini boleh meracun pemikiran rakyat untuk meruntuhkan segala-gala yang ada dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.”

Panggilan supaya mereka disiasat dan tindakan diambil keatas yang bertanggung jawab, terutamanya dari segi Akta Hasutan, adalah disokong sepenuhnya. Club Graduan 1Malaysia telah membuat laporan Polis dan Pengerusi Jawatankuasa berkenaan di Majlis Peguam dilaporkan telah menyatakan dukacitanya diFacebooknya.

6 09 2010
dinturtle

Salam Tuan Admin,

Selepas dikejutkan dengan pendedahan Pesuruhjaya Banci bahawa ramai cinayang tak tahu berbahasa Kebangsaan, berita terbaru tambah membangsatkan lagi bahasa Malaysia. Loh See Moi membuat aduan kerana dimarahi pegawai penyiasat polis kerana tidak pandai berbahasa Malaysia… ah Moi sudah berumur 50an ! Pegawai itu pula dikenakan tindakan ….

APA NAK JADI NI ???

7 09 2010
Sher

Good of 1Malaysia Youth Graduands Club to have lodged a police report against the MyConstitution Campaign saying it was seditious.

Edmund Bon who chairs the Bar Council Constitutional Law Committee tweeted:

“I’m really really sad. I’m sad because Club 1Msia has just turned millions of MyConsti Msians v Govt in name of 1Msia. Sob”.

8 09 2010
Halim

I was talking with a highly-qualified friend about the AZMI SHAROM fellow and his article. Then he emailed me the following interesting views on the arguments of the so-called liberal Malay, who may be politically motivated:

I think the article is seemingly learned but you can easily chip at it point by point if you want to. (The Constitution) is a very formal and legal argument. Now you know, how it is with legal argument. It depends on how wide the interpretation is. He has, conveniently, narrowed and broadened it to suit his arguments. By this means, he caricatures the arguments of the defenders of NEP and then attacks the straw figure he installed.

Some examples: he says the NEP is not for erecting a permanent in perpetuity race-based policy, and he marshalled all his legal sophistories in this regards. But then, who is arguing for a permanent race based policy. This are the arguments and slurs non-Malays thrown at the NEP. We defend the NEP as a policy to incorrect historical injustice. Also based on needs of a people, not race (being colonised, marginalised, almost displaced macam Palestinians, rightful original settlers etc. All these are needs arguments, hisotrical arguments, political arguments if you like, but never racial arguments.

As for wanting it to be in perpetuity, sama kata. The constitution does say, if I am not mistaken, directly of indirectly, up to the time when integration is realised. The NEP or affirmation action would cease with ‘integration’, as it would then outgrow its rational (historically speaking the affirmative action was motivated to protect a marginalised indigenous group due to colonialism). The issue of ‘justice’ or ‘equality’ as raised by (the writer) is relevant only once given full integration. As it is, nak satu sekolah pun susah!

Hence the question is not whether ‘justice’ and ‘equality’ as he presented, but really ‘whose justice’, ‘justice for whom’, ‘equality of unequals’ or ‘ equality which is cognizant of history and some needs’. But never had the NEP been a question of race. In fact, it is those who criticise it in the name of contextless ‘justice’, ‘equaltiy’. who unknowingly or otherwise speak the language and sense of ‘racism’.

8 09 2010
Orang Lama

Did somebody say Azmi Shahrom is a UM lecturer? Is he a reflection of this Star September 8, 2010 report –

UM drops from top 200 list of world ranking

PETALING JAYA: Universiti Malaya (UM) has dropped from the top 200 of the prestigious 2010 QS World University Rankings – slipping to 207 this year compared to 180 in 2009.

QS Quacquarelli Symonds Ltd managing director Nunzio Quacquarelli said the QS which conducts and compiles the annual World University Rankings measures university research quality, graduate employability, teaching commitment and international commitment.

“Although our academic reputation survey shows that many of Malaysia’s top universities are increasingly well-regarded around the world, the country’s leading institution UM has dropped in this measure, as well as in the employer review,” he added.

30 04 2013
Pickel

I do not know whether it’s just me or if perhaps everyone else encountering problems with your site. It appears as though some of the text on your posts are running off the screen. Can someone else please comment and let me know if this is happening to them too? This may be a issue with my internet browser because I’ve had this
happen before. Thank you

12 05 2013
trend-vine.com

I know this if off topic but I’m looking into starting my own blog and was curious what all is required to get set up? I’m assuming having a blog like yours would cost a pretty penny?

I’m not very web smart so I’m not 100% certain. Any
suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: